Conservation farming on steep lands - USAid

B. C. JOHN
mental cffect on iiny continuation of'thc prc).jcct's activities by govcrnlnent
aftcr its tcr~llination. Even the national project dirccror IAi the pro.jcct (luring
its lilk.
At the tirnc of' the project's inlxption, there nl~pcarccl to bc a strong
.justification fijr its prcscncc and location. It was only alicr the rcsl~lts of'
the socioeconomic surveys bccamc known and the attitude ofthc inhabitants
realized that doubts began to cmc:rgc as to what success the project would
have in establishing field dt.monstration areas. Also, it was not known at
rhc beginning thnt the pro-jcct was tc~
opcrrttc during n time of political change.
It may be lbr this reason thnt project counterparts fr~ccd i~security in their
positions.
LY
a
EtI~iopin. Although thc original objectives ol'thc Ethiopian prc~jcct were
similar to those of the other pro.jects, fundamental differences in projjc:
composition, organization, and government rlircction had a marked impact
on results. Stal'f training, both overscus and in-service, and preparation
of training materials don~inated project activities. Preparation or comprehensive
dcvelopmcnt plans :~nd the establishment of demor~stration subwatersheds
should also have formed an important part of the projeci's activities.
However. because of the lack of support both from within thc projectdue
to insufficient staff and resources-and from the government, little
was achieved.
This does not infer that there was little soil conservation work carried
out. Indeed, vast areas were treated under the World Food Program foodfor-work
campaign, but not as part of an integrated watershed development
packagc. Except for the benefit from greater water retention, it will
be some years before crop yield iiicreases are realized. This will not lead
to a spontaneous acceptance of soil conservation measures, and it is questionable
ss to what extent the work will be maintained. Instances have
occurred whcre new soil bunds have been built between old. This may not
be the norm, but it suggests that the work is being irnplen~ented as a task
in return for food rather than a desire to conserve soil. In areas where there
are shortages of food, inefficiency in a food-for-work campaign may be
acceptable, but at no time shoilld it have a negative effect on soil conservation
or afforestation. Obviously, there is a lack of understanding by some
farmers, and this ciearly indicates the need for a stronger, more energetic
extension service, with possibly a better irlessage. Wherever there is a foodfor-work
campaign, whether by World Food Program or another agency,
a prerequisite should be the availability of competent field supervision.
This should not be confused with emergency food aid in areas of famine,
which is another matter.